Friday, December 14, 2007

Q: Who is William Dembski?A: The worlds leading biologist, and proponent of Intelligent Design.

Q: What is Intelligent Design?A: A scientific theory that states the Universe is Designed. Research from all fields of science supports ID Theory, and more scientists are rejecting Darwinism in favor of ID Theory every day.

30 comments:

Any chance the other IDers, who have vilified their opponents for actually saying that the designer in ID is the Xian God, might actually apologize, now that Dembski said it out loud? Nah, what was I thinking, it would take honesty to do that.

More seriously, as "wrong" as the answer given is in ID dogma, it does seem to be in agreement with the shift to whining about religious persecuation that we see in Expelled. I doubt that this was an accidental slip by Dembski, as he's more knowing and more devious than your average IDiot.

So Dembski personally believes that the designer is the Christian God of the bible, but he does not speak for all design theorists on that matter. There are plenty of design theorists who are not interested in the identity of the designer. Here are a few: Berlinski,Denton, Wells, Fuller, Flew, and the lsit goes on. It is ridiculous to sayh that because Dembski is a Christian, ID is religious.

It's not the first time Dembski has forgotten the secret code: ix-nay on the od-gay.

Behe's done the same thing on several occasions.

Unfortunately, doofus creationist Ray is as doofusly ignorant when he blabs on about "ID theorists."

First, there are no ID "theorists" because there is no theory of ID. ID has proponents, rather, cdesign proponentists. The two leading ones who Speak for the ID Community are Dembski and Behe.

Berlinski, Flew, Denton and Fuller have neither written nor contributed anything substantive to ID "theory." The only components of ID "theory" have been created by Dembski and Behe. Wells is simply an angry, moth-eaten anti-evolutionist who writes about moths.

And, the list does not go on because that's the end of the list.

If Dembski says that the Designer is the Christian God then that's it. Dembski's the man! You can take that to the bank or court or wherever.

Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?”Overview:No. The ACLU, and many of its expert witnesses, have alleged that teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) is unconstitutional in all circumstances because it posits a “supernatural creator.” Here we provide several actual statements from intelligent design theorists that the scientific theory of intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer.

Too bad only xians are allowed to join (as far as I know) it's funded by christian dominionists (that Ahramson guy), they don't seem to really explain away the governing goals of their "Wedge":

Governing GoalsTo defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Here's Billy's latest on this, from UD comments (and I'm assuming that when he says "God does not need to specifically toggle the bacterial flagellum" he doesn't intend to imply that god couldn't do it effortlessly in a trice if he had the slightest whim, he just doesn't ... need to):

"In the context of the review, I was saying that I — personally — believe the Christian God is ultimately the designer behind the world. I’ve also written elsewhere that the Christian God might use teleological organizing principles to implement his designs (e.g., that God does not need to specifically toggle the bacterial flagellum). And I’ve stressed throughout my writings that there are alternative philosophical frameworks for making sense of ID. None of these considerations undercuts the scientific core of ID.

Come on folks, it’s no secret that I’m a Christian and that I have various motivations for pursuing ID (if you want to put me on the couch, please do the same with Dawkins)."

Jon: No he wasn't, read the transcript and the interview that the quote came from. It is just not true, because there ARE plenty of ID THEORISTS who do not believe in the Christian God.

Bil said: Berlinski, Flew, Denton and Fuller have neither written nor contributed anything substantive to ID "theory." The only components of ID "theory" have been created by Dembski and Behe. Wells is simply an angry, moth-eaten anti-evolutionist who writes about moths.

Bill, this is false. If you really believe this then you not read much of anything about Intelligent Design, which would not surprise me. Fuller was an expert witness in the Dover trial, and he has written numerous books on the philosophy of science. Wells has authored numerous books that have contributed to the ID, including one he recently co-authored with Dembski. He is a practicing biologist. It is obvious that you haven't read anything of his either. Berlinski published an essay (The Deniable Darwin) a few years ago that caused havoc among the evolutionists. Have you read it? Didn't think so. Denton wrote the book that launched the movement back in the mid '90's. I'm sure you have read it. And finally, Flew is an example of what happens when one denies the faith of naturalism and follows the evidence where it leads.

So, Bill, I think it is you who needs the education. At least when it comes to this debate.

Ray, you really need to educate yourself on creationism. You're all muddled up.

We're talking about ID, here, so pay attention.

Denton wrote a book attacking evolution, not about ID. So, you're wrong on that point.

Fuller is all about the philosophy of science, not ID. So, you're wrong on that point, too. Oh, and Fuller was, shall we say "ineffective" at Kitzmiller.

Wells has not published anything in biology since grad school and I'm not even sure about what he did then. Wells is not an ID "theorist" as he has contributed NOTHING to the "theory." Wells is an anti-evolutionist. Dembski contributed CSI and the EF. Behe contributed IRC structures. What has Wells contributed? Do tell? I'm all ears. (due to an unfortunate random mutation)

Berlinski has written nothing about ID. Again, he's an anti-evolutionist and his essay attacks the second law of thermodynamics, of all things, just like old time creationists.

Finally, Flew is a philosopher who has contributed NOTHING to the "theory" of ID. Flew concentrates on the philosophy of science.

Therefore, your original and subsequent comments are both wrong. There are no ID theorists because there is no theory of ID, and the only two people who have contributed anything to the proposition of ID are Dembski and Behe.

Now, Ray, my creationist pal, perhaps your next move will be to shift the goalposts to include anti-evolutionists and ID "theorists" as the same thing.

Bill, Wells just published a Biology book entitled The Design of Life. Just because a book does not fit into your materialistic worldview does not mean it isn't biology.

Refuting Darwinism IS in fact contributing to the ID movement. It is exactly what Phillip Johnson focused his work on, and he is undoubtedly the father of the entire movement.

Further, I think you are playing a game of semantics. All of the names I listed are scholars who have contributed to the ID movement. And ID is a THEORY. It is testable, falsifiable, etc. It is a scientific theory, however much you rail against it.

ray said: "there ARE plenty of ID THEORISTS who do not believe in the Christian God."

An ID "theorist" is one who has at least tried to adduce positive evifdene for ID. The list is short: Dembski, Behe, and, to be generous, Wells ("Design of Life", polar ejection force), Robert Marks ("added information" papers), and Gonzales (the habitable zone, fine tuning). All of them are Christians. [1] These other guys, Berlinski, Fuller, Flew, and Denton, [2] are only Darwin bashers. They have not even tried to contribute to any new elements of the theory of ID, so their belief status is irrelevant to your statement. The other practicing scientists who profess ID---Minnich, Snokes, Sielke (sp? UWis.), Axe---have likewise confined their ID efforts to disproving Darwin, and have contributed nothing positive to the theory as such; they are not ID "theorists," and their beliefs are likewise irrelevant.

It is important what the real ID theorists believe and say about ID, because it is they who define ID.

=============

[1] Wells thinks he's a Christian, even though the real Christian churches think the Moonies are farther out than the Pastafarians.

[2] Don't forget that Denton has changed his mind and awakened from the bad dream of ID. The Discovery Institute has not yet Discovered this, but it has been ten years.

Fuller gave testimony in Dover "as an expert in the history of science, the philosophy of science, and the sociology of science," not as an ID scholar. See here. In contrast, Behe testified "as an expert in biochemistry, evolution, intelligent design, creationism, and science education."

Perhaps you should work on understanding how the english language works. The comment regarding "belief" did not apply to the sentence I quoted. It merely stated he believed that the Chrisian God had a purpose. The modifier, does not apply to the following sentence.

As far as what Dumbski is trying at his blog, it's called spin. It's something he and his cronies are famous for over there.

Just because a book does not fit into your materialistic worldview does not mean it isn't biology.

You're right. When it fails to make a testable hypothesis, however, that does mean it isn't biology. When it fails to offer any sort of a positive position and instead, relies on the fallacy of bifurcation and arguments from ignorance, that does mean it isn't biology.

It is exactly what Phillip Johnson focused his work on, and he is undoubtedly the father of the entire movement.

Johnson is the father of the movement. And what does he say about it?

Johnson:"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy."

"The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus.""

Oops. Guess Dembski's just agreeing with him.

It is testable, falsifiable, etc. It is a scientific theory, however much you rail against it.

We can (and have) shown that systems like the eye, the flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc... are not IC. We've disproven that. However, since Creationism can always just move the goalposts a little further, it really isn't falsifiable.

Also, Behe's own definition of IC from the talk he gave here at KU last winter, shows that even as a negative argument against evolution, it fails because it's a strawman of evolution.

Philip Johnson disagrees with Ray about the status of ID as a scientific explanation.

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable."

ID IS NOT a theory. It is not testable, and is not falsifiable, etc. It is creationism, and therefor religion.

To quote from blog of Massimo Pigliucci:

"...ID is simply a form of creationism...both ID and standard creationism invoke a supernatural agent to “explain” natural processes. This not only is, by definition, not science (because science can only deal with natural explanations), but it also explains precisely nothing (because “God did it” is not an explanation unless we are told how and why she did it). For all the huffing and puffing performed by Dembski & co., they still haven’t progressed intellectually past good old Reverend Paley. And they never will."

Wells also wrot e abook called 'Icons of Evolution.' It was littered with half-truths, out of context quotes, lies, and nonsense. His new book is more of the same. His only real ID-hypothesis - that centriloes generated the polar ejection force premised on the ID notion that because centrioles look sort of like turbines they ARE turbines and therefore desigend - was falsified. He an dhis cronies at the DI rely on PR and propaganda.

He spent 10 years at Berkely and has only 2 multi-authored papers to show for it. That is PATHETIC.

Wells is PATHETIC, and those that actually think he is writing honestly and as a scientist are simply too ignorant to know any better.

Bill, Wells just published a Biology book entitled The Design of Life. Just because a book does not fit into your materialistic worldview does not mean it isn't biology.

Refuting Darwinism IS in fact contributing to the ID movement. It is exactly what Phillip Johnson focused his work on, and he is undoubtedly the father of the entire movement.

Further, I think you are playing a game of semantics. All of the names I listed are scholars who have contributed to the ID movement. And ID is a THEORY. It is testable, falsifiable, etc. It is a scientific theory, however much you rail against it.